Template talk:IEEE software documents

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 06:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:IEEE software documents → IEEE software life cycle
• Software quality assurance → IEEE 730
• Software configuration management → IEEE 828
• Software test documentation → IEEE 829
• Software requirements specification → IEEE 830
• Software verification and validation → IEEE 1012
• Software design description → IEEE 1016
• Software project management → IEEE 1058

– IEEE standards should be named by their number to avoid ambiguity with concepts of similar names. This is consistent with other IEEE standards on wikipedia such as IEEE 754. Some of these pages may need to be exchanged with their redirects. Ethanpet113 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose at least for some of these. Software project management is a generic activity in the software development that may or may not be associated with an IEEE standard. The article is written that way, not as a description of the standard. It is the same story with SCM, where it is described in general and an ISO standard is mentioned as well. I find the IEEE sidebar a bit misleading in these articles as they aren't about those particular standards. On the other side of the coin, e.g., IEEE 1058 is entitled IEEE Standard for Software Project Management Plans, not the more generic Software project management. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Much like per above. Are these articles really about these IEEE standards though? These are knowledge areas of Software Engineering, and it seems some articles are about them, their processes and subcategories, not the standards, at least not exclusively. I encourage having articles about the standards in specific, but these articles don't seem to specialize about them. I also think the sidebar is misleading. For instance, on the SQA article, the sidebar was put there by an user identified by an IP, and didn't say why they put it there. talk@TRANSviada 07:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.